1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates to an exercise machine of the horse-type on which a user is seated and glides generally horizontally in a reciprocal motion.
2. Description of the Prior Art
The prior art describes numerous exercise devices showing a horse-type exercise device including common elements such as a frame, a seat, handlebars, foot pedals, and a glide mechanism beneath the seat. Patents exemplary of such a horse-type exercise device design include U.S. Pat. No. 356,128 issued Mar. 7, 1995 to Smith and U.S. Pat. No. 344,112 issued Feb. 8, 1994 to Smith. Accordingly, the general overall appearance of a horse-type exercise device is known.
The patents discussed below also all disclose an exercise device including common elements such as a base frame, a seat, handlebars, foot pedals, and pivoting mechanisms. However, significant differences in utility exist between the various devices found in the prior art. For example, WIPO Pat. Application No. 92/18204 by Lambert published Oct. 29, 1992 describes a horse-type exercise machine in which a horizontal gliding motion is allowed by a handle bar assembly and pedal assembly structurally independent of each other but pivotally connected and being mechanically linked to a guiding mechanism riding a horizontal bar The guiding mechanism is a wheel strut to which a freely rotating wheel, not provided with a resistance or braking mechanism, is attached.
In contrast, U.S. Pat. No. 2,455,548 issued Jul. 22, 1948 to Bell, also disclosed in Canadian Patent No. 474,691 issued Jun. 26, 1951, shows a similar horse-type exerciser using a wheel and wheel strut; however, the wheel strut is eccentrically connected to a fly-wheel assembly. The assembly serves to smooth out the movement of the wheel on a wave-like track (designed for generating momentum before reciprocal motion occurs) and also fails to provide a resistance mechanism by which the wheel can be braked. Moreover, the handlebar assembly is immobilely attached to the frame. U.S. Pat. No. 2,642,288 issued Aug. 1, 1949, also to Bell, shows a similar invention in which the fly-wheel mechanism has been removed and a stop mechanism has been added. The distinguishable differences in the means by which the exercise devices function between the Bell patents and Lambert patent are, therefore, slight.
Likewise, U.S. Pat. No. 4,300,760 issued Nov. 17, 1981 to Bobroff describes a horse-type exercise machine, also pivotally linking the handle bar assembly and foot pedal assembly so that as the seat and the foot pedal assembly glide forward, the handle bar assembly pivots rearwardly. Although structurally the linkages described in the Bobroff and Bell '288 patent appear very similar, the Bobroff patent alleges simplified function.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,299,997 issued Apr. 5, 1994 to Chen describes an even simpler device pivotal at three points allowing a following member to reciprocate as guided between a pair of base frame rails. U.S. Pat. No. 5,421,795 issued Jun. 6, 1995 to Chen simplifies over the '997 Chen patent, including only two pivotal points and following member. Both Chen patents show the following member unified with the handlebar, and pivotally linked with independent foot pedal assembly.
U.S. Pat. No. 2,924,456 issued Feb. 9, 1960 to Miller discloses an improvement for a horse-type exercise machine comprising a stop means to limit pivotal movement of a handle pivoted to the frame. U.S. Pat. No. 5,029,848 issued Jul. 9, 1991 to Sleamaker is an exercise machine with a seat supporting roller carriage mounted on a monorail to accurately simulate skiing techniques.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,342,269 issued Aug. 30, 1994 to Huang et al. is an exercise machine in which the seat and handlebar assemblies are linked, but which fails to ride on a monorail or have gliding means, and has immobilely attached foot rests. U.S. Pat. No. 5,356,357 issued Oct. 18, 1994 to Wang et al. describes a similarly structured invention. U.S. Pat. No. 5,366,428 issued Nov. 22, 1994 to Liao has a foot pedal assembly which pivots, however its linkage assembly significantly differs from the prior art.
None of the above inventions and patents, taken either singly or in combination, is seen to describe the instant invention as claimed.